This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
In 1999, after pressure from the European Union, an Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) that would result in the banning of the steel-jawed leghold traps in the European Community, Canada, and Russia was signed. The United States implemented these standards through an Agreed Minute with the European Community. Over the last two decades, scientists have criticized the AIHTS for (1) omitting species that are commonly trapped; (2) threshold levels of trap acceptance that are not representative of state-of-the-art trap technology; (3) excluding popular traps which are commonly used by trappers although they are known to cause prolonged pain and stress to captured animals; (4) inadequate coverage of capture efficiency and species selectivity (i.e., number of captures of target and non-target species) performance. Concerns about the ability of standards and test procedures to ensure animal welfare, and about the implementation of standards, have also been voiced by wildlife biologists, managers, and conservation groups. In this review, we present a synopsis of current trapping standards and test procedures, and we compare the standards to a then contemporary 1985–1993 Canadian trap research and development program. On the basis of the above-noted concerns about AIHTS, and our experience as wildlife professionals involved in the capture of mammals, we formulated the following hypotheses: (1) the list of mammal species included in the AIHTS is incomplete; (2) the AIHTS have relatively low animal welfare performance thresholds of killing trap acceptance and do not reflect state-of-the-art trapping technology; (3) the AIHTS animal welfare indicators and injuries for restraining traps are insufficient; (4) the AIHTS testing procedures are neither thorough nor transparent; (5) the AIHTS protocols for the use of certified traps are inadequate; (6) the AIHTS procedures for the handling and dispatching of animals are nonexistent; (7) the AIHTS criteria to assess trap capture efficiency and species selectivity are inappropriate. We conclude that the AIHTS do not reflect state-of-the-art trapping technology, and assessment protocols need to be updated to include trap components and sets, animal handling and dispatching, and trap visit intervals. The list of traps and species included in the standards should be updated. Finally, the concepts of capture efficiency and trap selectivity should be developed and included in the standards. Based on our review, it is clear that mammal trapping standards need to be revisited to implement state-of-the-art trapping technology and improve capture efficiency and species selectivity. We believe that a committee of international professionals consisting of wildlife biologists and veterinarians with extensive experience in the capture of mammals and animal welfare could produce new standards within 1–2 years. We propose a series of measures to fund trap testing and implement new standards.
Gilbert Proulx; Marc Cattet; Thomas L. Serfass; Sandra E. Baker. Updating the AIHTS Trapping Standards to Improve Animal Welfare and Capture Efficiency and Selectivity. Animals 2020, 10, 1262 .
AMA StyleGilbert Proulx, Marc Cattet, Thomas L. Serfass, Sandra E. Baker. Updating the AIHTS Trapping Standards to Improve Animal Welfare and Capture Efficiency and Selectivity. Animals. 2020; 10 (8):1262.
Chicago/Turabian StyleGilbert Proulx; Marc Cattet; Thomas L. Serfass; Sandra E. Baker. 2020. "Updating the AIHTS Trapping Standards to Improve Animal Welfare and Capture Efficiency and Selectivity." Animals 10, no. 8: 1262.
The authors wish to make the following erratum to their paper
Sandra E. Baker; Stephanie A. Maw; Paul J. Johnson; David W. Macdonald. Erratum: Baker, S.E.; Maw, S.A.; Johnson, P.J.; Macdonald, D.W. Not in My Backyard: Public Perceptions of Wildlife and ‘Pest Control’ in and around UK Homes, and Local Authority ‘Pest Control’. Animals 2020, 10, 222. Animals 2020, 10, 644 .
AMA StyleSandra E. Baker, Stephanie A. Maw, Paul J. Johnson, David W. Macdonald. Erratum: Baker, S.E.; Maw, S.A.; Johnson, P.J.; Macdonald, D.W. Not in My Backyard: Public Perceptions of Wildlife and ‘Pest Control’ in and around UK Homes, and Local Authority ‘Pest Control’. Animals 2020, 10, 222. Animals. 2020; 10 (4):644.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSandra E. Baker; Stephanie A. Maw; Paul J. Johnson; David W. Macdonald. 2020. "Erratum: Baker, S.E.; Maw, S.A.; Johnson, P.J.; Macdonald, D.W. Not in My Backyard: Public Perceptions of Wildlife and ‘Pest Control’ in and around UK Homes, and Local Authority ‘Pest Control’. Animals 2020, 10, 222." Animals 10, no. 4: 644.
Wildlife causes ‘pest’ problems globally. Controlling wildlife involves killing and harming the welfare of many animals. We examined public perceptions of 10 wildlife species and wildlife management, in and around UK homes, as well as council ‘pest control’ services, to identify ethical, welfare-friendly ways to reduce wildlife problems. Most people had never had problems with each of the 10 species, and problems with some species were largely tolerated. Wasps, mice, and rats were the most frequently problematic species, the least tolerated and those for which councils most often offered ‘pest control’ services. People preferred Do-It-Yourself pest control over professional control, except for with wasps. They wanted control to be quick, lasting, and safe for people and non-target animals. Where people accepted the killing of wildlife, they still considered animal welfare important. Factors influencing pest status were complicated, while factors influencing people’s demand for pest control were fewer, simpler, and species-specific. Council pest control provision increased over the four years studied, but only half of councils offered advice on preventing/deterring wildlife; this advice was patchy and variable in quality. More effort should be put into preventing/deterring rather than controlling wildlife problems. Councils should provide standardised, informative advice on prevention/deterrence and prevention/deterrence services. Human–wildlife conflict occurs globally. Attempts to control ‘pest’ wildlife involve killing and harming the welfare of animals on a vast scale. We examined public perceptions of 10 wildlife species/groups and wildlife management, in and around UK homes, and public authority ‘pest control’ provision, in an effort to identify ethical, welfare-friendly ways to reduce conflict. Most people reported never having problems with each of the 10 species, and reported problems for some species were largely tolerated. Wasps, mice, and rats were the most frequently problematic species, the least tolerated, and those for which local authorities most often offered pest control services. Do-It-Yourself pest control was preferred over professional control, except for with wasps. People wanted control to be quick, lasting, and safe for people and non-target animals. Where people accepted lethal control, they were nevertheless concerned for animal welfare. Drivers of pest status were complex, while drivers of demand for control were fewer and species-specific. Local authority pest control provision increased over the four years studied, but only half of councils offered advice on preventing/deterring wildlife; this advice was patchy and variable in quality. Greater focus is required on preventing/deterring rather than controlling wildlife problems. Councils should provide standardised, comprehensive advice on prevention/deterrence and prevention/deterrence services.
Sandra E. Baker; Stephanie A. Maw; Paul J. Johnson; David W. Macdonald. Not in My Backyard: Public Perceptions of Wildlife and ‘Pest Control’ in and around UK Homes, and Local Authority ‘Pest Control’. Animals 2020, 10, 222 .
AMA StyleSandra E. Baker, Stephanie A. Maw, Paul J. Johnson, David W. Macdonald. Not in My Backyard: Public Perceptions of Wildlife and ‘Pest Control’ in and around UK Homes, and Local Authority ‘Pest Control’. Animals. 2020; 10 (2):222.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSandra E. Baker; Stephanie A. Maw; Paul J. Johnson; David W. Macdonald. 2020. "Not in My Backyard: Public Perceptions of Wildlife and ‘Pest Control’ in and around UK Homes, and Local Authority ‘Pest Control’." Animals 10, no. 2: 222.
Human activity affecting the welfare of wild vertebrates, widely accepted to be sentient, and therefore deserving of moral concern, is widespread. A variety of motives lead to the killing of individual wild animals. These include to provide food, to protect stock and other human interests, and also for sport. The acceptability of such killing is widely believed to vary with the motive and method. Individual vertebrates are also killed by conservationists. Whether securing conservation goals is an adequate reason for such killing has recently been challenged. Conventional conservation practice has tended to prioritise ecological collectives, such as populations and species, when their interests conflict with those of individuals. Supporters of the ‘Compassionate Conservation’ movement argue both that conservationists have neglected animal welfare when such conflicts arise and that no killing for conservation is justified. We counter that conservationists increasingly seek to adhere to high standards of welfare, and that the extreme position advocated by some supporters of ‘Compassionate Conservation’, rooted in virtue ethics, would, if widely accepted, lead to considerable negative effects for conservation. Conservation practice cannot afford to neglect consequences. Moreover, the do-no-harm maxim does not always lead to better outcomes for animal welfare.
Paul J. Johnson; Vanessa M. Adams; Doug P. Armstrong; Sandra E. Baker; Duan Biggs; Luigi Boitani; Alayne Cotterill; Emma Dale; Holly O’Donnell; Armstrong Doug; Egil Droge; John G. Ewen; Ruth E. Feber; Piero Genovesi; Clive Hambler; Bart J. Harmsen; Lauren A. Harrington; Amy Hinks; Joelene Hughes; Lydia Katsis; Andrew Loveridge; Axel Moehrenschlager; Christopher O’Kane; Meshach Pierre; Steve Redpath; Lovemore Sibanda; Pritpal Soorae; Mark Stanley Price; Peter Tyrrell; Alexandra Zimmermann; Amy Dickman. Consequences Matter: Compassion in Conservation Means Caring for Individuals, Populations and Species. Animals 2019, 9, 1115 .
AMA StylePaul J. Johnson, Vanessa M. Adams, Doug P. Armstrong, Sandra E. Baker, Duan Biggs, Luigi Boitani, Alayne Cotterill, Emma Dale, Holly O’Donnell, Armstrong Doug, Egil Droge, John G. Ewen, Ruth E. Feber, Piero Genovesi, Clive Hambler, Bart J. Harmsen, Lauren A. Harrington, Amy Hinks, Joelene Hughes, Lydia Katsis, Andrew Loveridge, Axel Moehrenschlager, Christopher O’Kane, Meshach Pierre, Steve Redpath, Lovemore Sibanda, Pritpal Soorae, Mark Stanley Price, Peter Tyrrell, Alexandra Zimmermann, Amy Dickman. Consequences Matter: Compassion in Conservation Means Caring for Individuals, Populations and Species. Animals. 2019; 9 (12):1115.
Chicago/Turabian StylePaul J. Johnson; Vanessa M. Adams; Doug P. Armstrong; Sandra E. Baker; Duan Biggs; Luigi Boitani; Alayne Cotterill; Emma Dale; Holly O’Donnell; Armstrong Doug; Egil Droge; John G. Ewen; Ruth E. Feber; Piero Genovesi; Clive Hambler; Bart J. Harmsen; Lauren A. Harrington; Amy Hinks; Joelene Hughes; Lydia Katsis; Andrew Loveridge; Axel Moehrenschlager; Christopher O’Kane; Meshach Pierre; Steve Redpath; Lovemore Sibanda; Pritpal Soorae; Mark Stanley Price; Peter Tyrrell; Alexandra Zimmermann; Amy Dickman. 2019. "Consequences Matter: Compassion in Conservation Means Caring for Individuals, Populations and Species." Animals 9, no. 12: 1115.
Behavioural events that are important for understanding sociobiology and movement ecology are often rare, transient and localised, but can occur at spatially distant sites e.g. territorial incursions and co-locating individuals. Existing animal tracking technologies, capable of detecting such events, are limited by one or more of: battery life; data resolution; location accuracy; data security; ability to co-locate individuals both spatially and temporally. Technology that at least partly resolves these limitations would be advantageous. European badgers (Meles meles L.), present a challenging test-bed, with extra-group paternity (apparent from genotyping) contradicting established views on rigid group territoriality with little social-group mixing. In a proof of concept study we assess the utility of a fully automated active-radio-frequency-identification (aRFID) system combining badger-borne aRFID-tags with static, wirelessly-networked, aRFID-detector base-stations to record badger co-locations at setts (burrows) and near notional border latrines. We summarise the time badgers spent co-locating within and between social-groups, applying network analysis to provide evidence of co-location based community structure, at both these scales. The aRFID system co-located animals within 31.5 m (adjustable) of base-stations. Efficient radio transmission between aRFIDs and base-stations enables a 20 g tag to last for 2–5 years (depending on transmission interval). Data security was high (data stored off tag), with remote access capability. Badgers spent most co-location time with members of their own social-groups at setts; remaining co-location time was divided evenly between intra- and inter-social-group co-locations near latrines and inter-social-group co-locations at setts. Network analysis showed that 20–100% of tracked badgers engaged in inter-social-group mixing per week, with evidence of trans-border super-groups, that is, badgers frequently transgressed notional territorial borders. aRFID occupies a distinct niche amongst established tracking technologies. We validated the utility of aRFID to identify co-locations, social-structure and inter-group mixing within a wild badger population, leading us to refute the conventional view that badgers (social-groups) are territorial and to question management strategies, for controlling bovine TB, based on this model. Ultimately aRFID proved a versatile system capable of identifying social-structure at the landscape scale, operating for years and suitable for use with a range of species.
Stephen A. Ellwood; Chris Newman; Robert A. Montgomery; Vincenzo Nicosia; Christina D. Buesching; Andrew Markham; Cecilia Mascolo; Niki Trigoni; Bence Pasztor; Vladimir Dyo; Vito Latora; Sandra E. Baker; David W. Macdonald. An active‐radio‐frequency‐identification system capable of identifying co‐locations and social‐structure: Validation with a wild free‐ranging animal. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2017, 8, 1822 -1831.
AMA StyleStephen A. Ellwood, Chris Newman, Robert A. Montgomery, Vincenzo Nicosia, Christina D. Buesching, Andrew Markham, Cecilia Mascolo, Niki Trigoni, Bence Pasztor, Vladimir Dyo, Vito Latora, Sandra E. Baker, David W. Macdonald. An active‐radio‐frequency‐identification system capable of identifying co‐locations and social‐structure: Validation with a wild free‐ranging animal. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2017; 8 (12):1822-1831.
Chicago/Turabian StyleStephen A. Ellwood; Chris Newman; Robert A. Montgomery; Vincenzo Nicosia; Christina D. Buesching; Andrew Markham; Cecilia Mascolo; Niki Trigoni; Bence Pasztor; Vladimir Dyo; Vito Latora; Sandra E. Baker; David W. Macdonald. 2017. "An active‐radio‐frequency‐identification system capable of identifying co‐locations and social‐structure: Validation with a wild free‐ranging animal." Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8, no. 12: 1822-1831.
Ruth E. Feber; Eva M. Raebel; Neil D'cruze; David W. Macdonald; Sandra E. Baker. Some Animals Are More Equal than Others: Wild Animal Welfare in the Media. BioScience 2016, 67, 62 -72.
AMA StyleRuth E. Feber, Eva M. Raebel, Neil D'cruze, David W. Macdonald, Sandra E. Baker. Some Animals Are More Equal than Others: Wild Animal Welfare in the Media. BioScience. 2016; 67 (1):62-72.
Chicago/Turabian StyleRuth E. Feber; Eva M. Raebel; Neil D'cruze; David W. Macdonald; Sandra E. Baker. 2016. "Some Animals Are More Equal than Others: Wild Animal Welfare in the Media." BioScience 67, no. 1: 62-72.
Moles are considered pests in Britain, but this issue has been little studied. Lower welfare standards have been tolerated for moles than for most other managed wild mammal species, as use of both the controversial poison, strychnine, and unregulated traps have been permitted. Strychnine was withdrawn in 2006 and there were fears that mole populations would increase as a result. In 2007, we conducted a comprehensive, nationwide survey of land manager perceptions, opinions and behaviour regarding moles and mole control on farms, amenities and domestic gardens in Britain. We surveyed 2150 land managers (achieving a 59% response rate) and ground-truthed 29 responses. Moles were reported to be present on most farms and amenities, and 13% of gardens, and were more common in lighter soils. Where present, moles were usually considered pests, this being more likely in Wales, Scotland and northern England, on livestock and mixed farms, and on large, high-value amenities, e.g., racecourses and golf courses. Mole control followed similar patterns to mole presence. More control may occur than is economically, and therefore potentially ethically, justified. Control should be more carefully considered and, where necessary, more effectively targeted. Kill-trapping was the favoured recent and future method on farms and amenities, even if strychnine was to be reintroduced; however, because mole traps are currently unregulated, some might not meet current welfare standards if tested. We found no evidence for an increase in moles since a farm questionnaire survey conducted in 1992; this could have wider implications for future wildlife management policy changes.
Sandra E. Baker; Stephen A. Ellwood; Paul J. Johnson; David W. Macdonald. Moles and Mole Control on British Farms, Amenities and Gardens after Strychnine Withdrawal. Animals 2016, 6, 39 .
AMA StyleSandra E. Baker, Stephen A. Ellwood, Paul J. Johnson, David W. Macdonald. Moles and Mole Control on British Farms, Amenities and Gardens after Strychnine Withdrawal. Animals. 2016; 6 (6):39.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSandra E. Baker; Stephen A. Ellwood; Paul J. Johnson; David W. Macdonald. 2016. "Moles and Mole Control on British Farms, Amenities and Gardens after Strychnine Withdrawal." Animals 6, no. 6: 39.
Human-wildlife conflict is a global issue. Attempts to manage this conflict impact upon wild animal welfare, an issue receiving little attention until relatively recently. Where human activities harm animal welfare these effects should be minimised where possible. However, little is known about the welfare impacts of different wildlife management interventions, and opinions on impacts vary widely. Welfare impacts therefore need to be assessed objectively. Our objectives were to: 1) establish whether an existing welfare assessment model could differentiate and rank the impacts of different wildlife management interventions (for decision-making purposes); 2) identify and evaluate any additional benefits of making formal welfare assessments; and 3) illustrate issues raised by application of the model. We applied the welfare assessment model to interventions commonly used with rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), moles (Talpa europaea) and crows (Corvus corone) in the UK. The model ranked interventions for rabbits (least impact first: fencing, head shot, chest shot) and crows (shooting, scaring, live trapping with cervical dislocation). For moles, managing molehills and tunnels scored least impact. Both spring trapping, and live trapping followed by translocation, scored greater impacts, but these could not be compared directly as they scored on different axes of the model. Some rankings appeared counter-intuitive, highlighting the need for objective formal welfare assessments. As well as ranking the humaneness of interventions, the model highlighted future research needs and how Standard Operating Procedures might be improved. The model is a milestone in assessing wildlife management welfare impacts, but our research revealed some limitations of the model and we discuss likely challenges in resolving these. In future, the model might be developed to improve its utility, e.g. by refining the time-scales. It might also be used to reach consensus among stakeholders about relative welfare impacts or to identify ways of improving wildlife management practice in the field.
Sandra E. Baker; Trudy M. Sharp; David W. Macdonald. Assessing Animal Welfare Impacts in the Management of European Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), European Moles (Talpa europaea) and Carrion Crows (Corvus corone). PLOS ONE 2016, 11, e0146298 .
AMA StyleSandra E. Baker, Trudy M. Sharp, David W. Macdonald. Assessing Animal Welfare Impacts in the Management of European Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), European Moles (Talpa europaea) and Carrion Crows (Corvus corone). PLOS ONE. 2016; 11 (1):e0146298.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSandra E. Baker; Trudy M. Sharp; David W. Macdonald. 2016. "Assessing Animal Welfare Impacts in the Management of European Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), European Moles (Talpa europaea) and Carrion Crows (Corvus corone)." PLOS ONE 11, no. 1: e0146298.
Managing wildlife humanely with learned food aversions describes experiments investigating the potential of learned food aversions for managing human–wildlife conflict without culling. First the chapter demonstrates that Conditioned Taste Aversion (CTA) using a colour cue can manipulate food preferences for untreated eggs among captive magpies and crows. However, captivity may influence animals’ motivation to feed, so, having demonstrated the principle, the chapter examines with free-ranging badgers protection of untreated maize cobs, this time using CTA and an odour cue. Despite promising findings, there are numerous practical difficulties with extrapolating CTA to full-scale applications, including identification of an aversive agent that is suitable for use in the environment. Finally, the chapter describes using a bitter taste to develop Generalised Aversions (GA) among foxes towards untreated food. While GA might avoid the difficulties of identifying a CTA agent, GAs are likely to provide only short-term protection of untreated foods. Learned food aversions merit further investigation.
Sandra E. Baker; David W. Macdonald. Managing wildlife humanely with learned food aversions. Wildlife Conservation on Farmland Volume 2 2015, 260 -275.
AMA StyleSandra E. Baker, David W. Macdonald. Managing wildlife humanely with learned food aversions. Wildlife Conservation on Farmland Volume 2. 2015; ():260-275.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSandra E. Baker; David W. Macdonald. 2015. "Managing wildlife humanely with learned food aversions." Wildlife Conservation on Farmland Volume 2 , no. : 260-275.
Moles on farmland: making mountains out of molehills? reviews European moles as agricultural pests in Britain, including pest status, mole damage, mole control and control methods, and the costs of damage and control. Moles are present on most British farms and commonly regarded as pests. This is particularly the case on livestock farms, largely because moles may be associated with damage to silage and pasture. Farmers often attempt to control moles, but this is not straightforward because moles live underground and their presence and numbers are not reliably indicated by the presence or number of molehills above ground. Since strychnine poison was withdrawn moles are now often trapped or gassed. The chapter concludes that farmers might reassess their need to control moles and that, where mole control is necessary, it could be better targeted. Managing or preventing mole damage might reduce the number of moles killed, often routinely, on British farms.
Sandra E. Baker; David W. Macdonald. Moles on farmland. Wildlife Conservation on Farmland Volume 2 2015, 245 -259.
AMA StyleSandra E. Baker, David W. Macdonald. Moles on farmland. Wildlife Conservation on Farmland Volume 2. 2015; ():245-259.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSandra E. Baker; David W. Macdonald. 2015. "Moles on farmland." Wildlife Conservation on Farmland Volume 2 , no. : 245-259.
Lethal spring traps are widely used for killing small mammals in the UK. Many require government approval, based primarily on humaneness. However, mole traps and break-back traps for rats and mice are exempt; those available vary widely in price and apparent quality. The EU is considering implementing a Trapping Directive that would alter UK legislation, and a recent report advised the EU that trapping legislation should cover all trapped species and encourage improvement of traps. Mechanical trap performance is often used as an indicator of welfare impact. We examined the mechanical evidence for scope to improve the welfare standards of rat, mouse and mole spring traps. We measured mechanical performance among a range of rat, mouse and mole traps. Impact momentum values varied 6-8 fold, and clamping force values 4-5.5 fold, among traps for killing each species. There was considerable overlap in the performance of rat and mouse traps. Trap-opening angle and spring type were related to impact momentum and clamping force in traps for both species. There was no relationship between price and mechanical performance in traps for any species, except talpa mole traps. We are unable to judge the direct welfare impact of the traps tested, but rather the potential welfare threat associated with their exemption from approval. The wide variation in mechanical performance in traps for each species, overlap in performance between rat and mouse traps and increasing availability of weaker plastic rodent traps indicate considerable scope for improving the humaneness of spring traps for rats, mice and moles. We conclude that all such traps should be subject to the UK approval process. New welfare categories might improve trap standards further. Our results could also help improve rodent trap design and assist consumers in selecting more powerful traps. Many thousands of rats, mice and moles might benefit.
Sandra E. Baker; Stephen A. Ellwood; Vito L. Tagarielli; David W. Macdonald. Mechanical Performance of Rat, Mouse and Mole Spring Traps, and Possible Implications for Welfare Performance. PLOS ONE 2012, 7, e39334 .
AMA StyleSandra E. Baker, Stephen A. Ellwood, Vito L. Tagarielli, David W. Macdonald. Mechanical Performance of Rat, Mouse and Mole Spring Traps, and Possible Implications for Welfare Performance. PLOS ONE. 2012; 7 (6):e39334.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSandra E. Baker; Stephen A. Ellwood; Vito L. Tagarielli; David W. Macdonald. 2012. "Mechanical Performance of Rat, Mouse and Mole Spring Traps, and Possible Implications for Welfare Performance." PLOS ONE 7, no. 6: e39334.
Hannah L. Dugdale; Dan Davison; Sandra E. Baker; Stephen A. Ellwood; Chris Newman; Christina D. Buesching; David W. Macdonald. Female teat size is a reliable indicator of annual breeding success in European badgers: Genetic validation. Mammalian Biology 2011, 76, 716 -721.
AMA StyleHannah L. Dugdale, Dan Davison, Sandra E. Baker, Stephen A. Ellwood, Chris Newman, Christina D. Buesching, David W. Macdonald. Female teat size is a reliable indicator of annual breeding success in European badgers: Genetic validation. Mammalian Biology. 2011; 76 (6):716-721.
Chicago/Turabian StyleHannah L. Dugdale; Dan Davison; Sandra E. Baker; Stephen A. Ellwood; Chris Newman; Christina D. Buesching; David W. Macdonald. 2011. "Female teat size is a reliable indicator of annual breeding success in European badgers: Genetic validation." Mammalian Biology 76, no. 6: 716-721.
Sandra E. Baker; Stephen A. Ellwood; David Slater; Richard W. Watkins; David W. Macdonald. Food Aversion Plus Odor Cue Protects Crop From Wild Mammals. The Journal of Wildlife Management 2008, 72, 785 -791.
AMA StyleSandra E. Baker, Stephen A. Ellwood, David Slater, Richard W. Watkins, David W. Macdonald. Food Aversion Plus Odor Cue Protects Crop From Wild Mammals. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 2008; 72 (3):785-791.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSandra E. Baker; Stephen A. Ellwood; David Slater; Richard W. Watkins; David W. Macdonald. 2008. "Food Aversion Plus Odor Cue Protects Crop From Wild Mammals." The Journal of Wildlife Management 72, no. 3: 785-791.
Sandra E. Baker; Stephen A. Ellwood; Richard Watkins; David W. Macdonald. Non-lethal control of wildlife: using chemical repellents as feeding deterrents for the European badger Meles meles. Journal of Applied Ecology 2005, 42, 921 -931.
AMA StyleSandra E. Baker, Stephen A. Ellwood, Richard Watkins, David W. Macdonald. Non-lethal control of wildlife: using chemical repellents as feeding deterrents for the European badger Meles meles. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2005; 42 (5):921-931.
Chicago/Turabian StyleSandra E. Baker; Stephen A. Ellwood; Richard Watkins; David W. Macdonald. 2005. "Non-lethal control of wildlife: using chemical repellents as feeding deterrents for the European badger Meles meles." Journal of Applied Ecology 42, no. 5: 921-931.